American Political Ideologies.

This is a discussion about the divergent, predominant Political Ideologies as they exist in America going into the 2012 Election Year. It presents for your consideration the premise that America is, before she is anything else, an idea. This idea of America was discussed, debated, decided upon and concretized in the founding and constituting documents known as the American Declaration of Independence, and the American Constitution.

First off, I hereby readily admit that I am a highly Partisan, quite rigid Catholic American Ideologue. An Ideologue is what a man is supposed to be, and of right ought to be. The only questions pertinent to this discussion regard the nature of the ideology any man professes. Men without ideology are not really men; they drift with the wind; they are as children, not yet serious, and may be dismissed from this discussion.

So, what is the nature of my fixed and rigid Ideology, of which I am so proud?

At the core, I am a Roman Catholic. That means that I follow and profess every sentence, every clause, every word and every letter of the Nicene Creed, and the Apostle’s Creed. I guide my life by the Creed, Holy Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Very simple; nothing to it.

At the next level, I am a Conservative Constitutionalist American Citizen. That means that I have internalized and embraced America’s Declaration of Independence, the American Constitution, Bill of Rights and all Amendments, and my State Constitution. I embrace the American Republic as legally founded, Constituted and legally updated; and I embrace the very idea of Citizen Representation in Law, and in being part of a Nation of Laws rather than merely another nation of Men. Very simple; nothing to it.

Now, my elected Representatives in high political office, and available candidates for election to high political office, are not all Roman Catholic. Nor are all of those few who are Catholic necessarily exemplary models of Catholicism. Therein lays the rub. Furthermore, all of them are not necessarily exemplary models of the high ideals of America’s Founders and the Framers of the Constitution. So the politics become more difficult.

I have to look for men of High Principle. When no Highly Principled candidate is an exemplary Catholic (or even if some are,) I look for the one(s) with Highest Moral Standards. Among those of High Principle with Highest Moral Standards, I seek the one who most strongly embraces the Declaration and the Constitution. It is not easy.

But it gets worse.

Alien Enemy Ideologies, smoothly pretending to be American, friendly and harmless, have entered into the American political arena in a very big way. Vast segments of the American citizenry have been mesmerized over the last century and a half into believing the “goodness” of various evil alien doctrines, which have been slowly and carefully interwoven into the social fabric of American life. No one in America is immune to this political hypnotism; even priests, ministers and rabbis are infected with one or another form of an alien enemy evil “recruitment virus.”

Marxism is not only un-American, it is anti-American, and seeks the destruction of America, and ultimately the end of all nations, via the path of horrific bloody revolution. But people forget that, or they never even learned it.

Marxism is not only un-Christian, it is anti-Christian, and seeks the destruction of Christianity, and ultimately the end of all religion, via the path of horrific bloody revolution. But people forget that, or they never even learned it.

Marxism has snuck into American Establishment Political Party thinking under the guise of Human Values and perverted forms of Equality and Justice. Marxism has snuck into Christian Establishment thinking under the guise of Social Justice and Collective Salvation and Liberation Theology.

So we have before us the problem of identifying a well camouflaged enemy who is well ensconced among us. Like enemy spies, out of uniform, wearing our uniform, and marching in the ranks with us. This problem must be solved; American national existence hangs in the balance.

To that end I have attempted to lay out the identifying ideas that push contemporary Americans toward or away from the main competing ideologies in the political arena today. I have long maintained that the American Democrat Party went Left a long time ago, and may today be described as predominantly, almost overwhelmingly, Marxist by ideology. The American Republican Party is not much better; the Establishment Republican Party may be, predominantly, equal parts Marxist and Criminally Corrupt.

To identify these ideas, these subsets of ideologies, I have tried to lay them out in a two dimensional table, with the vertical columns representing the various competing or colluding ideological factions, and the horizontal rows representing the hot political topics under contest. But it soon got too big to fit on this webpage; so I had to break it into two parts.

The first table represents the Left Side of the American political street, and the second table represents the Right Side of the American political street. Before each table is presented, I will attempt to briefly explain the vertical columns. After the end of both tables, I will then offer brief explanations of the horizontal topics represented in them.

First, from the Left side of the American Political Street: The columns are:

Marxist–Communist–Anarchist-Socialist

Those who have been with me for awhile know that I have been repeatedly taken to task by commenters and dialoguers on many pages on this site over my mixing of terms like Marxist, Communist, Socialist, etc. And that I defend the mixed practice. I submit that in contemporary usage, all are born of Karl Marx, and there is not a nickels worth of difference between them; or, for that matter, between Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc., etc., etc. See the Marxism, Socialism, Communism page.

Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. Communism, as Marx described it, has never existed, cannot exist, and is in fact quite impossible. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho, and many more, all were Marxists. They all referred to themselves as Communist, to their countries and their governments as Communist, and the name of their political Party was the Communist Party. We all know that every single one of their governments was a typical Socialist-organized absolute dictatorship.

The so-called Social-Democracies of Europe are all Marxist-inspired quasi-Socialist government arrangements built on the notion of Marxist Redistribution, equality over liberty and citizen dependency upon the state. All of which is, of course, a clear path to national bankruptcy, social breakdown and chaos if not civil war or revolution. Marxism is lie piled upon lie; virtually everything Marx wrote is a lie. See the Refuting Marx page for how Marxism slithered into Western Culture and secular thought. See the Catholic Communizer Dorothy Day page for how Marxism slithered into Judao-Christian theology.

The closing lines of Marx’s Communist Manifesto reveal the core ideology and the central purpose of Marxism, as follows:

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The workers have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

There is no room for compromise here; there is no possibility of any negotiated settlement between that fundamental Marxist idea and Constitutional America.

This column represents the principle set of ideas that are in direct opposition to the absolutely unique American foundation, organization, law and authority.

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. --Karl Marx.

He who negates present society, and seeks social conditions based on the sharing of property, is a revolutionary whether he calls himself an anarchist or a communist. --Johann Most.

The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall. --Che Guevara.

The revolutionary is the man who has emancipated himself from ties of blood and soil, from his mother and his father, from special loyalties to state, class, race, party, or religion. --Eric Fromm and Abraham Maslow.

(The Revolutionary described above, which pretty well fits the description of a dangerous sociopath, is what public education today is trying to produce, in opposition to the invented boogie-man, straw-villain Authoritarianism. And, right now, in power, we have the more modern version of this Revolutionary:)

"True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties ... Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

"Obama is also an Alinskyite.... Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project ... Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer." --Richard Poe.

Progressive–Liberal

Where Marxism seeks change through violent bloody revolution, the Progressive movement seeks the exact same change, but gradually, through a sort of political and societal Evolution. Like Marxism, it must be treacherous, sneaky and double-tongued in order to conceal its direct opposition to the American Declaration and the American Constitution.

Progressivism is the truly stupid idea to try to get a nation or a culture into the impossible condition of Communism while avoiding the unpleasantness of the intermediate step, which would be Marx’s Dictatorship Of The Proletariat. This Dictatorship period was intended by Marx to be a “temporary” dictatorship whose purpose is to change and “perfect” mankind so that the government-less, authority-less, law-less state of Communism – the vaunted Worker’s Paradise – would just sort of pop into being. (It’s a fraud; once in this dictatorship, you would never get out.)

Anarchists, demonstrating yet another strain of Marxian stupidity, would like to avoid the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat phase by moving, via revolution, right straight into the impossible state of Communism. These are the “QUESTION AUTHORITY” stupid asses. It’s been tried; it has always failed. See the Catholic Communizer Dorothy Day page.

Like the Marxists, Progressives come in three predominant flavors. There are the real Progressives, who are knowingly working and manipulating others to radically change the system; there are the super-naïve, idealistic simpletons who think they are working to improve mankind, and there are the really stupid Useful Idiots who are being controlled and manipulated by evil men, and who are not even aware of what the game is really about.

Note this well: Marxism and Progressivism, in idealistic theory, seek to change man, to remake him in a new image, and to perfect him. But if you succeed in changing the nature of man, he will no longer be man. Marxism and Progressivism, in actual reality, seek to enslave man.

The fatal flaw in the reasoning of the purely idealistic Marxist and the purely idealistic Progressive involves the false education that says that man is essentially bad and needs to be modified, coupled with the false education that says that religion is false, and the job of perfecting mankind should and must be done by “enlightened” men. If successful, they would “perfect” man straight into hell. Marxism and Progressivism oppose God and nature.

Establishment Democrat Party

The American Democrat Party has been largely co-opted by Marxist ideology. It always trends toward Redistribution of Wealth, Distribution (or control) of Property, and a warped, perverted view of citizen equality as compared to that of America’s Founding Fathers. It is equality of stuff; equal pay, equal housing, equal food, etc. It is not, therefore, the equality of rights and remedies before the law intended by the Founders and the Framers. This kind of Equality and Liberty are mutually exclusive things; when one increases, the other decreases. When all men are equal in what they have, they have given up all rights, with the exception of one and only one right: the right to be in exactly the same economic condition as everyone else.

That means no right to personally prosper by the work of your own hands. No right to the pursuit of happiness. No right to any such liberty.

The “Democracy” the Democrat Party currently champions is the Democracy spoken of above by Marx, rather than the Democracy represented by the American Republic. Democrats have worked to pass the XVII Amendment making Senators subject to popular election (see the Repeal XVII page for the details), and they support and work toward the elimination of our Electoral College. In short, they seek to make us into a pure Democracy rather than a Republic. A pure Democracy, of course, is quite impossible; what today’s Democrats are really after is total failure of the governmental system, so that, pointing at the failure of Capitalism, they may be provided with an excuse to “replace” it with a typical Socialist dictatorship.

The “Establishment” Democrat Party is made up of those long-term members who have learned to game the system, make themselves rich, and ride herd on the newer members and train them in being subservient to the Marxist Party. I mean Democrat.

This persistent movement of the Democrat Party to turn us into a Democracy is important to understand; our Republican form of government resists that change, by its very design. Understanding the reason that the Marxism-infected and infiltrated Democrat Party seeks this change toward pure Democracy is vital to the whole question of American national survival.

The Marxian Socialism, or Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is the theoretical stepping-stone system on the path to Communist Utopia; it is where the workers are to be “perfected” and made ready to work in harmony and peace in the absence of law and authority. As a matter of historical fact, no one who ever got into this state, which is rule by the Communist Party and the dictator at the head of it, ever got out of it on their own.

Note well that “Democracy” was Marx’s camouflaged word for Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” Which would be in actuality, a Dictatorship of the Party. When a Marxist says Democracy, as when he says Socialism, what he means is Dictatorship.

Democracy is the road to socialism. --Karl Marx.

The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic. --Vladimir Lenin.

If you’ve ever been on this site before, you are familiar with the SLIMC. I put the other titles up there largely for the uninitiated; everybody knows what the Mainstream Media is, and everybody should know how it slants to the Left, as does virtually all of Hollywood, Show-Biz and the world of Celebrity.

Marxism owns the news we see, the polls we read and the commentary everywhere. The only venues left to American Conservatism are Talk Radio and Glenn Beck’s new Internet TV Network. That’s it.

FOX News is falsely touted to be Conservative, but they promote what they call “Fair And Balanced” reporting, which means they give equal time to the opposition. Well, the opposition is, in its very essence, Marxist by ideology, and Marxist ideology is the mortal enemy of America, liberty, Christianity, all religion, the family, business, private property, tradition, authority, etc., etc., etc. Now, if you were really a true American Conservative, why on earth would you ever give Fair And Balanced treatment to any sworn, implacable, absolute mortal enemy of America?

[W]e must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government,” …. “… We must change the basic structure of our global community … to a new system governed by a democratic UN federation. … Today the notion of unlimited national sovereignty means international anarchy. We must replace the anarchic law of force with a civilized force of law. --Walter Cronkite.

It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace ... To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order. --Walter Cronkite.

Academe and Formal Education

American Communism completed its long march through our learning institutions before most of us were born. The American College Campus is, in a word, Red. Marxist and Anarchist professors abound. The Public School system, inspired not by any American founding documents, but by Marx’s Communist Manifesto, is run and controlled by teachers who got their degrees from Leftist educational bastions like Columbia University. What more needs to be said?

Occupy Wall Street

This is the output of Marxist education, recruitment and community organizing. Urinating and defecating on the sidewalk, or on police cars, or on American flags. Busily scratching themselves, because of head lice and body lice, crabs, fleas, and perhaps other parasites of parasites. Infested with HPV, genital scabies, gonorrhea and Lord knows what else. Most of them cannot rationally or logically explain what they are doing there, except for the ones who have been paid to be there. They all strongly support the Democrat Party and International Unions, and the Democrat Party and International Unions strongly support all of them. They all deserve each other.

Second, on the Right side of the American Political Street: The columns:

American Constitutional Conservative

This represents me, and it should represent you. I would like to say that it is the opposite of Marxist-Progressive Ideology; but America is just too unique in the world to say something that general. I will say that it opposes all Marxist and Progressive ideologies. It supports America as founded. That means it supports Religion, especially Christianity, the family, private property, private business, liberty, the pursuit of happiness (the right to work for your own personal profit,) legitimate authority and the rule of law. And everything else Marx hated.

Establishment Republican Party

Old time, long-term, inside-the-beltway professional politicians. They have mastered the art of gaming the system for personal benefit, just like most of the Democrats. Like the Democrats, they have no intention of losing the gravy train they are on. They are not all RINOs (Republican-In-Name-Only); some of them are just plain corrupt, and they are in it for the power and/or the money.

The “Establishment” Republican Party is made up of those long-term members who have learned to game the system, make themselves rich, dominate and ride herd on the newer members and train them in being subservient to the Establishment members.

Libertarian

Libertarians are wonderful American allies, up to a point. The Libertarian position is amoral, in that it does not recognize a common morality upon which to base civil law. In other words, what’s good for me is not necessarily good for the next guy, and what’s bad to the next guy might be fine with me. We cannot have variable morality and un-fixed moral norms by which to guide our behavior. The Libertarians support the Declaration and the Constitution, but we have to wonder why, since they embrace moral relativism. And moral relativism would, sooner or later, call into question the rightness (and wrongness) of the Declaration and the Constitution.

Tea Party

This is the largely unorganized (except very locally) and unofficial political “Party” that sprung up in response to the election of our first flat out Marxist President, Comrade Obama, peace be upon him. I am a member, but I carry no card, and there is no registration or initiation. You just sort of show up. All you ever sign is a meeting roster so they know how many attended, unless you volunteer for something. It is the most thoroughly Conservative pro-American group I have ever encountered. Meetings begin and end with prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, whether any Marxists, Progressives or other Democrats like it or not.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Partially inspired by FDR’s famous Four Freedoms, this declaration was drafted by the UN after WWII with the intention of never allowing the Nazi and Japanese atrocities to happen again. It is supposed to have the force of “International” law; however, we Americans are subject to our own Constitution, and not to any unrepresentative, unaccountable alien law built by any alien entity not subject to our Constitution. We will not have any alien laws superimposed above our own Constitution that affect our lives.

That being said, the Declaration is a mixed bag, with mostly good things, but it also contains several seeds of social destruction. Most rights listed we all would agree with. Some, such as freedom of religion and the right to change religions might call forth the wrath of Islam. And the right to not be compelled to join any organization might call forth the wrath of organized labor unions.

But among the ones that might call forth the wrath of American Conservatives would be the absolute rights to Social Security, Equal Pay, a specific Standard of Living, Health Care, Unemployment Pay, Sick Pay, Disability Pay, Old Age Pay, Motherhood and Child Care Pay, Formative Education (which shall be compulsory and designed to inculcate all of these UN rights into the students,) and more.

The problem is that these items are not called mere benefits, or wishes, or even described as part of any social safety net for unfortunates; they are called absolute rights, of everyone. Rights and Responsibilities come in paired sets; if someone has an absolute right to something, then someone has the corresponding absolute responsibility to supply it.

Who the hell did these people think they were? If the State is to either supply all these things, or legally compel private business to supply them, then, where is the State and/or private business supposed to get the resources with which to do it? The State would have to take money from someone and spend it on someone else. Do you smell Marxism yet?

These “rights” are a direct attack on the Free Market and therefore on Liberty, because those two things always exist together as a complimentary pair, and when either one suffers, so does the other.

The Four Freedoms

In his 1941 State of the Union speech, FDR first laid out the famous Four Freedoms;

Freedom of Speech;

Freedom of Religion;

Freedom from Want;

Freedom from Fear.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with the first two, but the last two grossly exceed the Constitution and its First Amendment American Citizen Rights. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt went to the United Nations and used these Four Freedoms as the basis for arguing for and drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Four Freedoms were incorporated into the Preamble of that document.

So, the question arises, how on earth can any person, any government, any company, any Church, any organization or any human entity ever guarantee that no citizen will ever want for anything? Freedom from Want has been interpreted to mean the right to an “adequate” standard of living, which covers a lot of territory. It is left to some Commissar or some petty bureaucrat to determine the meaning of adequate in this particular “freedom.”

If the State is to either supply this adequate standard of living, or legally compel private business to supply it, then, where is the State and/or private business supposed to get the resources with which to do it? The State would have to take money from someone and spend it on someone else. Do you smell Marxism yet?

Freedom from Fear has been variously interpreted, with the most reasonable interpretation involving national security provided by a good national defense. But Roosevelt’s famous “You have nothing to fear but fear itself.” is just nonsensical. Even as he deepened the Great Depression with his grand programs, he enshrined himself in the hearts of Americans with his regular Fireside Chats over the radio. He was certainly a great communicator and master of the media of his day.

But FDR was a Progressive, at the very least.

Newt Gingrich is a self professed Progressive, and he considers Franklin Delano Roosevelt – not Ronald Reagan – to be the greatest President of the 20th century. Gingrich embraces FDR’s Four Freedoms. What more needs to be said?

Among FDR’s New Deal monstrosities was the Social Security Ponzi Scheme. When FDR invented it, there was something like 35 workers paying into Social Security enough money each month to pay one Social Security retiree benefit that month. Today, there are less than three workers providing enough deduction from their pay to pay that one retiree benefit each month. And the number of workers is declining as the number of retirees is climbing, and people are living longer. Is it any wonder FICA taxes go up every pea picking year? By about 2030 there will be one worker paying the benefit of one retiree every month. After that it goes negative; one worker will have to have enough deducted from his pay each month to pay more than one beneficiary his monthly benefit.

In the Financial Crisis page we talked about how FDR invented Unemployment Compensation, Fannie-Mae, and all sorts of major spending programs to help spend our way out of the depression. All of these programs, including Social Security, were touted at that time to be temporary. That was a lie. Freddie-Mac was invented by Congress in 1970 to – guess what – compete with Fannie Mae – to provide competition in the Creating-Bad-Debt market, because no private lending institution was stupid enough to do that kind of business, or anything like it.

The sole purpose of the government-invented entities Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac was to make bad mortgage loans. To make loans that no professional banker in his right mind would make. That was and is their very purpose for being. Any change in the way they do business that might provide a profit would defeat their very reason for existing. Their design and their reason for being was to make bad debt, and continually increase bad debt.

And Gingrich considers FDR to be the greatest President of the 20th Century. Go figure.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is our national purpose for being; our nation’s very foundation stone. This is what America stands for before she stands for anything else. If America is to be true to herself she must be true to the principles promoting and protecting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

It is when men enjoy these three rights that the natural system of Capitalism comes into being. Capitalism is natural; Capitalism just happens, when and where men enjoy liberty. Another word for Capitalism is a Free Market. It is not planned or controlled or governed by any outside entity or government or power. Just as liberty is natural within the breast of man, the free market is natural where a culture is free.

It is a gross misinterpretation to call the Pursuit of Happiness – the ability of a man to work in his own self interest – a system of greed. It is a slander. You may call it greed if you wish, but I submit that self-interest is the first dynamic of survival itself. No one can ever be of any use to anyone else if he doesn’t first take care of his own needs.

Our Declaration of Independence guarantees that our citizens are able to prosper by their own effort. A man must make profit before he can be charitable.

These are the unique American Principles to which our Founders pledged “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor”, in the words of Jefferson, to which all signed their names. They all knew that they were signing their own death warrants if the new nation failed to survive. They all signed.

And they all stood by those signatures.

American Constitution

The American Constitution is the legal “Organizing” of the powers of the new government, spoken of in the above quote from the Declaration, built upon the foundation of the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Constitution provides the organization of the American government, and rules of operation of the American government.

With respect to all of the many Bureaus and government Departments established since Ratification, Americans today need to pay particular attention to Article 1 Section 8, which specifically sets forth those government activities that may be created, financed and regulated by the government. If a government Bureau, Department or other organization is not specified in Article 1 Section 8, then it needs to be examined for how it came to be, and why it should remain in existence. See the Shut Down Unneeded Bureaucracy page.

Marxist and Progressive office holders are spending and borrowing our nation into economic oblivion, on an emergency level. As Harry Reid once put it, paraphrasing, he and his fellows were trying desperately to dig our way out of this hole we’re in. Anyone with a lick of sense would know that the way to get out of a hole is not to keep digging; yet digging the hole deeper is exactly what they are doing. They are trying to borrow our way out of debt with periodic and episodic raises in the debt ceiling, and they are trying to spend our way to economic prosperity with periodic and episodic stimulus programs, bail-outs and take-overs.

In the initial development of our Constitution, the Framers referred to the Law of Nations published by Emerich De Vattel in 1758. It described the Laws of Nature as applied to Nations. Western Civilization, guided by the Judao-Christian Ethos, held that the essentials of the Laws of God were written on the hearts of men, and that men would, of their nature, have some instinct, however well or poorly developed, for determining right versus wrong.

The Law of Nations held that cultures of men organized into nations were, as they were related to one another, as distinct corporate entities, Persons, having the cumulative Personal Nature of the predominant population of the nation. The same natural rights and responsibilities applied to nations as to men. A Nation is assumed a priori to be an absolutely free and independent Moral Person. The rights of Nations, as with the rights of Men, are limited only in that they may not infringe upon the rights of any other Nation. The moral responsibility of a nation to aid, help or ally with a neighbor nation in time of need is tempered only by the greater responsibility for the well being and security of the nation’s own citizenry. It is assumed that Good Moral Nations, like Good Moral Men, will make Good Moral Decisions regarding their neighbors.

The Constitution purposely and specifically organizes America as a Republic and not a Democracy, with designed-in obstacles to prevent the government’s eventual descent into pure Democracy, which was seen to equivalent to mob rule. The Constitution purposely and specifically organizes the government so that it is comprised of three co-equal branches with specific division of activity, and no branch holding any form of superiority over the others.

The Legislative Branch Makes Law.

The Executive Branch Executes Law.

The Judicial Branch Adjudicates Law.

There is nothing in the Constitution granting any particular Branch special authority over the others in any area. The Judicial Branch, for instance, has no legitimate Constitutional authority over the other two branches in rendering any particular new or re-interpretations of the Constitution itself. All the Judicial Branch is Constitutionally authorized to do is adjudicate law; it is not authorized to render any particular reinterpretations or “new” interpretations of the Constitution itself. Nor is any other branch authorized to do any such thing.

The Constitution is a fixed legal document, written in English, that says very specific legal things. It fixes the responsibilities and the limitations of the Government, the rights of the citizens, and the process for election of candidates to high office. It is not an “organic” document subject to various interpretations to suit the whims, fancies or intentions of anyone. It is a crystal-clear, black-and-white English language legal document. The Constitution contains within itself the method of changing itself, through Constitutional Amendment.

Make Law; Execute Law; Adjudicate Law. That is All the American government is Constituted to do. Everything else it does is extra-Constitutional.

Note that when the government coins money, delivers mail, etc., it is executing law, because the Constitution itself is a set of laws, and is the preeminent law of the land. No law, from any source whatsoever, may be placed above it.

Judao-Christian Religion and Morality

As we said in the Refuting Separation of Church and State page, the original American Colonies were established and chartered as various kinds of Christian Theocracies whose founders emigrated here to escape religious persecution in post-Reformation Europe. The original state-religions were:

Delaware, unspecified “Christian”,
Pennsylvania, Quaker,
New Jersey, unspecified “Protestant”,
Georgia, Church of England,
Connecticut, Congregational,
Massachusetts Bay, Congregational,
Maryland, Catholic,
South Carolina, Church of England,
New Hampshire, Congregational,
Virginia, Church of England,
New York, Church of England,
North Carolina, Church of England,
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Baptist,
Flroida, Catholic during Spanish era, Church of England during Brithish era;
West Indies, Church of England.

The First Amendment Religion Clause, to quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof;

put two restrictions on Congress, and no restrictions on anyone else. Congress is Constitutionally prohibited from establishing any official state religion, and Congress is Constitutionally prohibited from interfering in any way with anyone’s free exercise of religion.

The original Colonists came here, for the most part, seeking religious freedom. They established their Christian religions in law specifically to avoid being ordered by anyone to worship in some other way. They did not intend to force their own specific Christian religion on any citizens, or to prevent other citizens from belonging to other Christian faiths. They only intended to not ever be forced to change their religion.

The Religion Clause above was decided upon to keep the newly created Federal Government from imposing any particular religion on any or all of the established Colonies, for the Colonists would have no religion imposed above their own. But the Religion Clause provided an historic tipping-point moment in American history, for it was during that great debate that the individual colonies began to see the wisdom of not having any state-established religion at all, even at the Colony level. One by one, they modified their Charters, or included wording in their new State Constitutions, similar to the Religion Clause, and disestablished all of the individual State religions in the greater interest of Religious Freedom.

Let me repeat: the Religion Clause puts two restrictions on Congress, and no restrictions on anyone else. It puts no restrictions on any priest, minister or rabbi. It puts no restriction on any citizen. There is no Constitutional prohibition against any political campaign or endorsement being preached from any pulpit. Any Congressman, Senator, President, Vice President, Supreme Court Justice or other Judge who in any way opposes any Christian prayer, Christian art, Christian symbol or any other form of open exercise or expression of religion, whether in the public square or anywhere else, violates the Religion Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. He also violates his sworn oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. He thereby makes of himself a domestic enemy of America as Constituted.

The Christian nature, or Ethos, of America came out of the long development and history of Western Civilization. Western cultures base their civil law on their morality; their natural sense of right versus wrong, which comes out of their Christian religion. We discussed this in detail in the Judao-Christian Ethos page.

The First Tablet Commandments of God, referring to man’s relationship with God, form the nucleus of Theological Law, and are best addressed to the people from the Pulpit. The Second Tablet Commandments of God, referring to man’s relationship with his fellow man, form the nucleus of Moral Law, and are addressed both from the Pulpit, and from the development and enforcement of Civil Law. Morality – the human sense of right versus wrong – stems from the Natural Law that is written on the hearts of men, reinforced and reinvigorated by life in Judao-Christian religion.

Implicit in Honor Thy father and Thy mother is the sacredness of the normative family, and the presumptive right of parents to first authority over their own children, and to special social protections for the family.

Implicit in Thou shalt not kill is the inalienable right of all innocent human beings to continue to live.

Implicit in Thou shalt not commit adultery is the sanctity and inviolability and protected nature of the marriage covenant, and, again, the sanctity and protected nature of the family.

Implicit in Thou shalt not steal is the inalienable right to private property: the right of an individual to actually own something.

Implicit in Thou shalt not bear false witness is the protected and sacred nature of truth, and the moral requirement to protect it and to profess it fully and without distortion.

Implicit in Thou shalt not covet is, again, the sanctity of marriage, and, again, the protected right to own private property.

For thousands of years the world has recognized that these Commandments represent what are called the wise restraints that make men free. When any of them are weakened, so is freedom weakened. Only so long as we all agree to adhere to these quite reasonable rules can we trust each other and cooperate together. When that is no longer the general case, we begin the decline into barbarism. Even in the absence of faith, these wise restraints remain the best rules for human conduct ever written, and they remain the best possible foundational basis for civil law. This is what all the world knows as Judao-Christian morality.

The overwhelming majority of the American population is Christian, whether the Democrats like it or not.

It remains for a future Conservative Constitutionalist Congress to undo, through legislation, the fraudulently created New-Law-Through-Legal-Precedent, pretending to be a Constitutional Principle, called the Separation of Church and State. This was New Law, and new law was and remains the exclusive domain of the Congress, not the Judiciary. The Court violated the Constitution with that arrogant decision/proclamation.

See the Church and State in Art page for hard evidence of Moses, the Ten Commandments and more, in, on and all over the United States Supreme Court Building, the Capital Building, other federal government buildings and all over Washington D.C. And then contemplate and ponder how it ever came to be that the Supreme Court held that a lower court could not display the Ten Commandments in its courthouse.

What does Marxism say about it?

Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand. --Karl Marx.

Religion is the opium of the masses. --Karl Marx.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. --Karl Marx.

The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion. --Karl Marx.

The Pope? How many divisions has he got? --Joseph Stalin.

What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or invoke God’s will and expect that argument to carry the day. If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. --Barack Hussein Obama, fabricating illegal bounds to open political debate.

At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It insists on the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitment may be sublime; to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. --Barack Hussein Obama.

Cujus region, ejus rligio (Whoever’s reign, his religion) ... He who owns the country owns the Church, and he that makes your laws for you has the right to make your religion for you. --Martin Luther.

"For us in Russia communism is a dead dog. For many people in the West, it is still a living lion.

"I have spent all my life under a Communist regime, and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either.

"In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State." --Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Islamic Religion

As we said in the Refuting Mohammed page and a host of other pages, Islam is an aggressive ideology of world conquest masquerading as a religion. But even if you don’t believe that, you must believe what Islam says about itself. If you believe that Islam is a legitimate religion, then all you need to do is read the Koran to see that it orders its followers to make continuous war against us – against all who are not of the Islamic faith – until there is only one religion on earth: Islam. And until there is only one law on earth: Islamic law. Islam intends to rule the world. It was that way from the beginning. It’s in the Koran.

Almost everyone in America who speaks or writes about our “War On Terror” has the situation within the world of Islam exactly backwards. They speak of “Radical Islam,” and of “Islamists,” and of “Islamic Extremists,” and of “High-jacked Islam,” and of “Islamo-Fascists,” and of the terrorists themselves as belonging to some small, extreme, radical faction of Islam.

But here’s the thing: Osama Bin Ladin was the one who was the most orthodox among his Islamic brothers. What Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is saying about us, and about what he intends to do to us, and to Israel, and to the Jews, is completely mainstream within Islam. It is all the seemingly peaceful Islamic governments and all the Islamic followers who mean us no harm who are the “radicals” and the “extremists” within the house of Islam.

The more any Moslem gets into his own religion, the more dangerous he becomes to all of us. The less well versed in it he is, or the less he believes in it, the more peaceful he will be to his non-Moslem neighbors.

Read the Koran. Read the Refuting Mohammed page, and all the pages linked in the right column of that page. It’s all right there in the Koran in black and white. I can’t believe more people don’t see this.

Islam, quite officially, opposes the American Declaration of Independence, the American Constitution, American borders and sovereignty and American national existence. And so does Marxism.

Ordinarily, atheistic Marxism and Islam would be natural mortal enemies; but their commonly held anti-Americanism, as well as their commonly held goal of world destabilization leading to eventual world revolution provides the strategic socio-political glue that currently makes them into temporary allies. In the end, once world destabilization is successful, they will become mortal enemies. Their essence – their very nature, their central ideologies demand it.

Free Market (Laissez-faire Capitalism)

Capitalism – meaning, the Free Market – is not a system of man, in that it is not purposely created or controlled by man. Capitalism just happens when and where men enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When large numbers of men are left free to pursue their own self interest and allowed to prosper by their own work, a great plethora of varieties of goods and services are created by the work of these free men. Adam Smith didn’t invent it; he only described it in his Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, the same year our Declaration of Independence was published.

When a person works enough to make profit – meaning more than he needs for his subsistence – he creates wealth. Wealth is just another name for profit. The only source of the creation of new wealth is a free man making more money than he needs for food, shelter, clothing and so forth. The excess wages or profit may be spent by him to buy property, of any sort. Thus it may be said that

Profit = Wealth = Property

Profit, wealth and property are merely different manifestations of the same thing.

A free man is perfectly free to use his own profit any way he wishes to use it, within the law. He may spend it, save it, squander it, gamble with it, invest it or give it away. It is his to do with as he pleases, because he owns it. It is his private property.

Those of us with the most creativity or imagination take best advantage of the Free Market Rule that says Find a Need and Fill It. This means, in simple terms, detecting a social Demand for a given product or service, and then finding a way to produce that product or service to satisfy the preexisting demand, and produce it in such a way as to economically profit from the effort.

The only restraints that should be put on the Free Market would involve remaining within the rules of Judao-Christian Morality, which should always be backed up by representative legislated Civil Law.

See the I, Pencil page for an example of how this completely natural system works.

Keynesian Interventionism or Demand Side Economics

John Maynard Keynes, 1883 – 1946, was the famous British economist who wrote The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936. His General Theory assumed (incorrectly) that the Great Depression was caused by a general failure of the free market forces of Capitalism. In fact, the Great Depression was directly caused by government action, as shown in the Financial Crisis page. Traveling under this misconception, Keynes advocated for a Mixed Economy approach, in which government controls would have a roll in a predominantly private-sector driven economy. These were not merely moral controls, as against fraud or corruption; they were government controls on such things as interest rates, price controls, wage controls, and included “Government Investment in infrastructure.”

Right. Government building something, like a bridge or a highway, which would produce no revenue and have no pay-back, was (and still is) referred to as an investment. Keynesianism seeks to control or smooth out the business cycle by use of creating, stimulating or controlling demand through price controls, taxes, etc. Note that adoption of Keynesian economics did not end the Great Depression; indeed, they made it worse.

Injecting money obtained through tax revenue into the economy through make-work projects like highway infrastructure improvements is touted to improve the economy temporarily, while the project lasts, because the temporary employees will spend their excess wages in the economy. It ignores the fact that the money to pay the temporary workers was taken out of the economy in the first place, in the form of taxes. It is thus very nearly a zero sum game; there is no way the temporary government worker’s input to the economy could equal or exceed what he takes out of it. However, the worst thing about the whole thing is that the Keynesian government seeks to control demand, and thereby control how these employees spend their excess dollars.

As applied today, if government wishes to discourage something in the private sector in favor of something else, it uses punitive taxes, tax breaks, law and regulation to do it. Oil and oil-products, such as gasoline, for instance, is taxed and regulated to such a degree that its cost is considerably more than double what the free market would produce, but at the same time production has been regulated and stifled to a near standstill, reducing supply and raising prices even more. At the same time, wind and solar electric production and electric cars are heavily subsidized and practically produced by government, with our tax dollars, in preference to what free market forces would produce in accordance with natural demand. This is a blatant effort to change natural demand for one product in a negative way, in favor of another product for which there is little or no natural demand.

Keynes was wrong.

Jiminy Carter proved it, with wage controls, price controls, interest controls, strangling regulation of business, all resulting in severe recession, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment and double-digit mortgage interest rates during the 70s. The American government has no Constitutional business applying Keynesian Demand-Side economic controls on the American economy. Our government is not Constituted to control the economy. All our government is Constituted to do is Legislate Law, Execute Law and Adjudicate Law. That’s it.

Keynesian economics oppose nature, and the natural law of supply and demand.

Liberty and the free market have a symbiotic relationship; whatever injures one injures the other. If you restrict the free market, you restrict human liberty. Just as an American citizen uses his vote to elect his chosen representatives, he uses his dollars in his pocket to elect the products and services of his choosing. Restricting the market via regulation, behavior-modifying taxes or penalties, subsidized alternative products or services, etc., reduce the freedom of the consumer, because they adversely affect his ability to make an absolutely free choice in what to consume. He is being told what to consume, or prodded in the direction of the choices favored by the government. When it’s the government’s choice and not the citizen’s choice, freedom is lost.

Supply Side Economics (Reaganomics)

Supply Side economic strategies developed in reaction to the devastating effects of government Keynesian interventionist efforts, particularly those attempting Demand Management, during the government’s clearly failing attempts to stabilize American and world economies in the 70s.

The two big components of Supply Side are a tax strategy and the “Supply” strategy.

The Laffer Curve, which somehow got named after Arthur Laffer, who taught it but did not invent it, shows that government revenue generated by taxes is zero when the tax rate is zero percent, but it is also zero when the tax rate is 100%. The maximum possible of tax generated revenue is therefore somewhere between a zero tax rate and a full, total tax on every dollar. Zero% of anything is nothing, and 100% of nothing is nothing. The reason that revenue goes to zero when the tax rate is 100% is that when it becomes unprofitable to work because of taxation, the worker will simply stop working. That goes for individuals and it goes for corporations. Corporations, as a general rule, employ lots of workers; when a corporation stops working, so do many workers.

So the trick to finding the revenue “sweet spot” somewhere on the Laffer Curve is to play with the tax rates and settle where workers will still work at the highest rate. Reagan proved, as did Kennedy before him, that cutting taxes can raise government revenue. He proved it by doing it. When taxes went down, business boomed, more people were hired, the tax base expanded, new companies were born, there were more people and more companies making income to be taxed, and government tax revenues actually rocketed, after lowering taxes.

But Reagan made another salient point about taxes, and it is this:

Corporations do not pay taxes; only people pay taxes.

Corporations, like individual workers, work for profit. When they cannot make profit, they will stop working. When a corporation is taxed, the corporation will find ways to cover that tax cost within the operation of the business, through combinations of raising the price of the product or service it provides, cutting the wages or benefits of employees, or by cutting the number of employees, in order to maintain profit, which is the sole reason to be in business. So we see that ordinary citizens actually pay the corporation’s taxes, either through reduced income and benefits, or through paying higher prices for goods and services in the market place. When it no longer pays the worker to work, he will quit. When it no longer pays the corporation to operate, it will stop operating.

Corporate taxes or business taxes – whether sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation or whatever – make no sense at all. Everything – every single thing – available in the free market would be incredibly cheaper if business was not taxed. No exceptions. Reagan was right; only people pay taxes.

The “Supply” strategy involves loosening or eliminating strangling regulation on business, with particular emphasis on regulations attempting to modify or create Market Demand in an artificial and unnatural way. Cutting government regulation of business has the effect of freeing nature, and allowing the automatic benefit of a greater and more varied supply of goods and services at lower prices.

Other parts of the strategy involve encouraging people to go to work, by removing inducements to not go to work, such as unemployment compensation. Raised unemployment rates and continuously lengthened payment periods have the effect of training people to not work, getting them less and less qualified over time, and making them more and more dependent on government for subsistence. Paying into the unemployment tax pool is an unnecessary drag on the economy, creating an expense for both employee and employer, reducing the pay of both.

Similarly, the Minimum Wage reduces legal employment among those in most need of work. The fact is, they (many of them) will still work, but in a hidden sub-culture, being paid “under the table.” All of these people are not criminal aliens; there exists a significant population of American workers, in farm fields mostly, who live an out-of-sight existence on the fringes of society. The statement that Americans “will not do the work” that the criminal aliens do is false. Minimum wage laws do more harm than good. They are another negative artificial interference with free market forces.

Of course, Labor Unions are another foe of the free market; they will be discussed in more detail elsewhere in this article.

The fact of the matter is that Supply Side should not have had to come into being, because Demand Side never should have existed. Not in America. The American government is not Constituted to try to control free market forces. The Market should be left alone by government. The only control the government should exercise over business is the same control it exercises over citizens, that being, the enforcement of representative legislated civil law. If an activity is not criminal, it should be left alone.

Pacifism, Disarmament

Pacifism and peaceful coexistence is probably the strongest and most effective weapon in the Marxist arsenal. It has been and is being used quite effectively against America and the rest of Western Culture. The reason it is so effective is that Christians, by their nature, really do want peace, and peaceful coexistence; they want it so bad that they may be suckered into believing that Marxists want it too. Here’s a quote from the Marxist Fundamentals page by Professor Libor Brom:

Lenin, the founder of the first Communist state, put it simply: "First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands." And, "We must practice coexistence with other nations, until we are strong enough to take over by means of world revolution.... We are not pacifists. Conflict is inevitable. Great political questions can be solved only through violence.... It is inconceivable that Communism and capitalism can exist side by side. Inevitably one must perish.''

Rykov, Lenin's successor in the Council of Soviet Commissars, corroborated: "It is our duty to inculcate in the minds of nations the theories of international friendship, pacifism, and disarmament, encouraging their resistance to military appropriations and training, without ever relaxing our own efforts in building our military equipment.'' Manuilsky, a prominent Soviet professor at the School of Political Warfare, said: "The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. We shall begin by Launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends."

And Khrushchev, a more contemporary Soviet prime minister, said: "We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.''

Now you might think that Marxism, as any kind of a global movement, died with the fall of the Soviet Union; but that is not true. Marxism, like America, is an idea. Marxists, and Progressives, are ideologues, just like me. The idea behind the ideology may never die, so long as this world continues. Peaceniks and the Peace Movement have been with us in various forms since long before most of us were born. It got big boosts from the Beat Generation (the Beatniks) Movement in the 40s and 50s, and from the Hippy – Yippee Movement of the 60s and 70s. It was always influenced by Marxism, from the beginning. That influence was quite often betrayed even by the language the Peaceniks used, including such pejorative terms as Bourgeoisie and Exploiters aimed at business men, representatives and any officials or authority figures.

It might be revealing to read the Pacifism portion of the Catholic Communizer Dorothy Day page, to see what real Communists and Anarchists really mean when they use the word Pacifism. In a nutshell, war or violence is “never, every justified,” unless it is against Capitalism. Capitalism causes violence, and invokes inevitable violent revolution against itself. In the Marxian perverted teaching of world history, all wars resulted from the existence of classes, class struggle is at the root of all violence, and world peace will only be achieved when there are no more classes. So violence against the bourgeoisie is justified; it is only violence committed by the bourgeoisie that is “never, every justified.” See?

America is a bourgeois nation, and it therefore causes and even invites violence against itself, from foreign nations and from American citizens. The existence of Capitalism and the existence of the bourgeoisie is simply intolerable to “enlightened” men who have read Marx. Catholicism is a rich and bourgeois Church, and therefore invites justified violence against itself; all historical persecutions of the Church were brought about by the bourgeois nature of the Church itself. If it would just impoverish itself, it might never be persecuted again.

Don’t laugh; the world (and America) is full of very serious people who believe that nonsense. This is why the abominable behavior and even violence of the current Occupy Wall Street movement has the blessing of the Democrat Party and the SLIMC. They encouraged it, organized it, and they clean up the image of it and propagandize it to the hilt. That is why Marxist ideologues like Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, Madam Hillary and their ilk will have nothing but praise for the OCW movement; unhappiness, crisis, chaos and disorder are important sub-goals of Marxist ideology.

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism. --Karl Marx.

America as The World’s Policeman

The periodically recurring “World’s Police” question revolves round the felt political and military need for America’s large defense forces, and the stationing of American military on foreign soil. Those trending toward pacifism and/or isolationism would like to cut the military to the bone, close all foreign bases and cut if not end American Naval presence much beyond American waters.

The plan of the current Obama administration is, I believe, considerably more sinister toward the socio-political future of America, and that plan is betrayed by his drastic military cuts, his sharing of American super-secret military technology with foreign governments, his direct opposition to American border security and his clear and obvious weak foreign policy toward nations that are self-declared American enemies. Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, appears to be inviting military and or terrorist catastrophe of some sort; perhaps even multiple catastrophic terrorist events or military attacks.

But how, you might ask, could an American administration profit from any horrible event on American soil, or multiple horrible events, which might be acts of war, in an election year? I refer you to the Refuting Marx page, in which we discussed the stratagems of Machiavelli, and the Hegelian Dialectic.

There we described how the Revolutionary Man (Machiavelli) would purposely induce or cause a horrible situation to destabilize society, and then forcefully restore order, and take charge of the nation to the cheers of the “saved” populace. And, there we described how the Progressive Man (Hegel) would induce a smaller series of horrible situations, then personally resolve them, to the cheers of the “saved” populace, and, with each such event, move himself closer to dictatorship.

Add to those two Marxist stratagems, which were adopted by Marx and incorporated into Marxism, and which are entertained by all Marxist ideologues, the historical fact that the American people rally round the President after horrendous events, as they rallied round Roosevelt after the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, and as they rallied round Bush after the sneak attack on 9/11. Such a rallying round the President could sweep Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, into a second term in office, and perhaps even put the House of Representatives back into Marxocrat hands. Then, he could go play golf and relax, while his underlings continued the systematic destruction of the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.

You say no American politician would ever plan or hope for a nuclear bomb or other horrific event in America, involving the deaths of thousands or even millions of American citizens; you say no American politician would ever hope for successful attacks by foreign forces sinking American aircraft carriers or other warships through the use of shared secret American military technology.

I say, never put anything past a Marxist.

Remember the three pithy sayings of the Marxist:

The Ends Justify the Means.

You Can’t Make and Omelet Without Breaking Eggs.

And, the eventual ability to say to someone,Shut Up and Get On the Cattle Car.

These sayings encapsulate the guiding ethos and moral guidelines, if you can call them that, to which all Marxists adhere and that drive Marxist ideology.

But, those are just my thoughts regarding the current Marxists in the highest seats of American political power. To get back to the larger question regarding how America has become, by default, the Policeman of the World:

The world needs such a police force, because free commerce needs it. It has always been so. The Roman Empire might have been brutal and dictatorial, but it did bring some good things to the world, and one of them was the famous Pax Romana; the Peace of Rome. The Roman era is famous for the marvelous roads it built, many of which are still in use today. But less known about those roads are the periodic outposts of Roman soldiers – police precinct houses, if you will – every so many miles along those roads.

Acting as police, all over the known world, Rome made commercial travel safer. In some areas, it virtually ended highway robbery and piracy. It was safe, or at least considerably safer, for caravans to travel and transport goods to distant markets. Nobody wanted to mess with Rome, and the whole world was made richer for it.

The British Empire had a similar long history of keeping the seaways safe, or safer, from piracy, largely in the interest of foreign commerce as well as British commerce. Today, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the military retrenchment and near disarmament of most of the old NATO allies, few Western nations have any capability of extending military force much beyond their own borders. Fewer still have the ability, if attacked, of doing any more than fighting on their own soil. They cannot even hope to carry the fight to their potential enemies. Europe has sunken into a Socialist malaise, dependent on foreigners or foreign aid even for their own defense. Many cannot even defend themselves any more, without outside help.

They have grown used to an American military presence in the world, and always somewhere nearby. They have grown so used to it that they have made themselves into dependents. Perhaps we have helped.

I don’t know what to do about the European defense situation, but I do know that world commerce needs to be safe. Someone needs to protect the airways and the seaways. The two (2) questions that need to be asked are,

If we don’t do it, who will?

If nobody does it, what happens to World Commerce?

We might be tempted to let all foreign nations settle their own squabbles with each other completely on their own, and there might be some wisdom in that temptation. However, when there exist in the world Ideologies with global goals, such as the treacherous conquering ideologies of Marxism and Islam, it might be a good long term stratagem to resist their forceful spread and growth in the world outside of America, as well as resisting their treacherous spread and growth inside. Any long-term goal involving world conquest inevitably involves us all. We cannot avoid it forever.

Social Engineering Legislation and Regulation

Remember the three Constitutional tasks of the American Federal Government:

To Legislate Law.

To Execute Law.

To Adjudicate Law.

How, pray tell, did it ever come to pass that our Federal Government could require a restaurant to, first, find the number of calories in a piece of chicken and, second, publish that number on the restaurant’s menu? Is that what we elect and pay these turkeys to do? Why? Is the Federal Government now our Mommy?

I have complained all over this website about American bureaucracy run amuck. We have loads of Letter-Letter-Letter gigantic government bureaus, such as the FDA, EPA, etc., each loaded down with unelected and unrepresentative bureaucrats who invent and enforce Government Regulations with full force of law, covering ever increasing areas of mundane human life in America. The nameless, faceless bureaucrat is driving the bus. This is not government by representation – this is government by Administration. We have appointed Administrators to tell us what to do and how to live our lives.

Now, most of us would raise hell about our Local government trying to tell us what to eat, or to micro-manage the menu or the chalk-board list of Daily Specials in our local restaurants. That sort of thing is not what representative government, at any level, is supposed to be worried about. What I eat does not concern my government. It’s bad enough to have to get out a magnifying glass to read all the government-required fine print on the label of a can of beans. Anyone with any common sense would know that all that label ought to say is - BEANS.

What most American citizens don’t know about all of these gigantic bureaucracies is that most all of them come with their own special police forces, and the ability to go out into the hinterlands to enforce the bureaucratic regulations decided on by their bureaucrats, in a foggy area of law possibly in opposition to Posse Comitatus. Most bureaucratic police forces come under an OIG (Office of Inspector General) for the specific bureaucracy or agency, and they have their jackets with the big white letters on the back, and their swat teams and all that. These people are not military, but they are not local police, either. They are Federal. American has no need of bureaucratic police forces.

Social Engineering involves legislation gone wild. It is tax law and regulatory law that seeks to modify human behavior, toward a vision of perfected mankind. I submit that perfecting mankind is not the purpose of our Constitutional government. What it should be concentrating on is Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Tobacco may be the best example of both legislative and bureaucratic lunacy in the interest of perfecting mankind. Tobacco is legal in America. However, the government wishes it were prohibited, but lacks the ability to make it illegal. Tobacco products are taxed far, far beyond the actual value of tobacco, with punitive taxes, to encourage people to not smoke. Industry is forced to put ridiculous negative “advertisements” on packaging, and to radically modify their own paid advertising, and restricted in how and where they may advertise (as was done in NASCAR and in various sports arenas,) and constantly subjected to frivolous class action lawsuits.

Consumers are ever increasingly restricted in where they may consume the product, even outdoors. I am still amazed at how these American citizens repeatedly just roll over and accept ever more ludicrous rules imposed upon then regarding where they may smoke.

One of the many stops on my daily route as a courier driver is a Veteran’s Administration hospital, and when going in and out, I see old and young sick, wounded and/or disabled veterans trying to find a place to have a smoke outside the main hospital door. There are signs all over the place, and a periodic voice coming over a loudspeaker, announcing that there is no smoking within 1000 feet of that door, and that this is a smoke-free zone. And there are hospital police periodically appearing to harass smokers and herd them away from there. So I see these vets, some in wheelchairs, some using walkers or canes, hobbling around away from the shelter of that roofed-over door just to have a damned smoke. In the snow, in the rain, in the cold, whatever. Maybe you think that’s a good thing, for the vets. As far as I’m concerned, they paid their dues, and they don’t deserve to be treated that way. Especially the aged ones.

Contrary to popular myth, second hand smoke will not drop a charging bull elephant in his tracks at 20 paces.

Here’s my view: if a consumer product is deemed harmful, then it should be prohibited by representative legislated law or Constitutional Amendment. If it is not prohibited by representative legislated law or the Constitution, then it should be left strictly alone. The government, at any level, has no business trying to modify anyone’s behavior, unless that person is breaking a law. Behavior modification of the citizenry is not what our government is Constituted to do.

Tobacco is allowed, indeed encouraged by government to be grown on American farms. Tobacco was once used as legal tender – currency – in early America. Tobacco is legally imported and exported. It is only after it has been sold to, or after it has been retailed by, one of the large companies that the legal harassment begins. These companies are publicly touted to be monstrous Capitalistic Exploiters who are in business solely and exclusively to kill all of their customers for profit.

Right.

Our government is restricting free market forces and citizen liberty, for our own good, whether we like it or not.

Marxian Bourgeois & Proletarian Class Struggle Myth

The Rigid Social Class Structure Marx promoted in his Communist Manifesto does not exist; indeed, when he wrote his Mainifesto, in 1848, it was already disappearing, in Western Culture. (We may argue about whether Czarist Russia was a Western or an Eastern culture.) Rigid, fixed, impenetrable classes went out with the feudal era. In Marx’s day, even the Royal class, what was left of it, was becoming less and less a ruling class; power was increasingly gravitating to political Parties, Prime Ministers and Parliaments. Royal families were increasingly becoming sidelined, beloved but quaint figureheads.

That was then, and this is now. America has never had any such fixed classes. The only exception to that statement would involve the period of American slavery, which had two rigid classes – the Slaves, and the Planters. Those two classes were small, compared to the total population, and they were not absolutely fixed. There were a few slaves who became planters, and owned slaves; to my knowledge, there were no planters who became slaves. At any rate, the Abolition movement and the simple Judao-Christian morality behind it ultimately ended up freeing the slaves, at horrendous cost in human lives, suffering and treasure, and the rigid class structures of the Planters and the Slaves came to an end.

The very idea of rigid, fixed social classes is anathema to the American Idea. That’s why slavery simply had to end. America couldn’t be true to herself, to her self-defining proclamation that all men were created equal, if there were any such a thing as a rigid class structure in America.

But Marx described the Bourgeois class – the owners of Capital and the social order they belonged to – and the Proletariat class – the lowest class of wage laborers – in his Communist Manifesto. Capital is defined as income-producing property, such as a factory or a productive machine of some sort. In the Communist view, the Proletarian was valued only for his ability to do productive labor, and was referred to as a wage slave, incapable of ever getting out of his class or his condition. Neither of these classes exist in America, nor in any Western Culture nation that is free, meaning not Communist.

That presents the major problem confronting the advance of Marxism in America:

Marxism absolutely requires Class Warfare for Societal Revolution.

There are no Classes in America.

You can’t have Class Warfare if you don’t have Classes.

So Marxism in America had to invent new boogie-men and straw-villains to take the place of Marx’s Bourgeoisie and his Proletarians. In America, in the ever evolving idea of Marxism,

Multiple generations of American children graduate from primary and secondary education programs steeped in the contents of the table above. They have been trained in it, to the point that many of them can see a Military Industrialist Complex under every bed in America. Big Oil is seen by a large segment of our population as an entity of Pure Evil, rather than merely a business, made up of people, as the normal part of an essential industry. In many schools students have been required to view Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth to terrify them into a false sense of scientific, moral and social dependence on wise, benign Super-Government Action to save the planet. Marxist propaganda has become the primary function of professional education in America.

The SLIMC and Show-Biz has jumped on this bandwagon in a really big way, and spent untold treasure in demonizing the New Bourgeois elements in entertainment. Mystery and who-done-it movies such as Three Days of the Condor, The Pelican Brief and others; and “kids” movies, such as Cars 2, and the Muppet character Tex Richman, instill in the minds of the audience the notion that Big Oil and Multi-National companies are the equivalent of the dark evil forces exemplified by Darth Vador, or Adolph Hitler. When in fact, all “Big Oil” is is another plain and simple industry, with no black helicopters, professional assassins or sinister plots involved in it.

Government Monopolized Bank & Credit (The Fed; the IMF)

There is not, and there never was, any good reason for the creation of the Fed in the first place. The Fed is extra-Constitutional. The very idea came out of Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Here’s the quote:

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. –Communist Manifesto.

See the Federal Reserve page for the details; the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 should be repealed, the Fed should be shut down, and the whole Treasury situation should be simplified. The job of the Secretary of the Treasury should be no more complex than that of a bookkeeper. The nation’s revenue could be kept in a local bank or credit union, or more than one, with the Treasurer keeping track of what goes in and what goes out. The only other tasks of Treasury would involve the printing and coining of money, and controlling inflation. Beyond that, it’s bookkeeping. Your wife could do it, if she manages your household. Only the quantities change.

“Earmarks” are specific individual line items on a bill, which are completely unrelated to the objective of the bill, and which add cost that is unrelated to the objective of the bill, and that have the name of a Senator or Representative attached (“earmarked”) to them, in an off-the-record negotiated deal in the legislative process. It enables the Congressman whose name is on the earmark to get federal money, completely unrelated to the objective of the original bill, to spend in his district for another purpose, and with which to buy future votes. Earmarks are also a significant source of political “skimming” for personal profit. See the Earmarks page for the details.

Earmarks were first tried in 1817 but vetoed by President James Madison as un-Constitutional. The first time an earmark successfully passed was in 1970 by Nixon. Perhaps by that time Presidents were getting involved because they started getting their kick-back rewards too. Since then Earmarks have quietly grown to the point that Earmarked line items sometimes outnumber legitimate line items on a bill. No one in federal government complains, or even speaks about it above hushed tones, because it is so very profitable for all federal government officials.

Shhh! You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours! Shhh!

Earmarks form a major part of Pork Barrel Politics, which include favors from lobbyists, insider-trading, and Lord knows what. Earmarks violate not only the Constitution, as Madison pointed out, but they violate the moral Rule of Subsidiarity that says that local problems should be handled at the local level. Earmarking should be outlawed, whether by specific legislation or by amendment, because current government leadership has become too loose in Constitutional interpretation, and too loose in morals to be trusted with any such unrestrained power. Any representative who participates in the Earmark process should be removed from office.

Steeply Graduated Income Tax & Property Tax

Once upon a time, a tax on income was simply unthinkable. Whether the tax was on the income of a worker, a farmer, a businessman, a corporation or partnership, or any income-producing entity whatsoever, taxing income was simply unthinkable. The American Founders and the Constitution Framers might be rolling in their graves at the thought of, not only a tax on income, but a graduated tax on income. The very idea requires punishing success in the interest of redistributing income.

1913 turned out to be a banner year for Marxism in America, because that year two Amendments were passed: XVI, in which the Federal Government was allowed to legally tax all income of all income-producing entities, and XVII, in which the American Senate was turned into merely another House of Representatives, moving America closer to the ungovernable and unworkable state of being a pure Democracy. You can see the details of our opposition in the Repeal Amendment XVI page, and in the Repeal Amendment XVII page.

The graduated income tax is a full frontal assault on the free market and on liberty. The purpose is to attack Capitalism – which is the free market and liberty. The idea of an income tax was not born in America; it came straight out Marx’s Communist Manifesto.

“2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” –Communist Manifesto.

“It was under Wilson, of course, that the first huge parts of the Marxist program, such as the progressive income tax, were incorporated into the American system.” –Robert Welch.

“And what would help minority workers are the same things that would help white workers: the opportunity to earn a living wage, the education and training that lead to such jobs, labor laws and tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation’s wealth ... ” –Barack Hussein Obama.

Government or “Public” Education

Remember the three Constitutional functions of the American Federal Government:

To Legislate law.

To Execute Law.

To Adjudicate Law.

There is nothing in Article 1 Section 8 authorizing Congress to make any law respecting the Federal Government providing or even getting involved in the process of educating the nation’s children, or taxing to support it, or spending treasure to accomplish it. This is yet another grandiose idea that is alien to America, and that was born in Marx’s Communist Manifesto:

10. Free education for all children in public schools. – Communist Manifesto.

The American Public School system has been, since birth, gradually becoming more and more of a Marxist propaganda center, whose main goal is turning out Useful Idiots and Revolutionaries rather than scholars. We talked about this in the Opposing Public Education page, the Shut Down the Dept of Education page and the Cut the ED Budget page. American school children educated outside the public school system are, in all cases, better educated in the classical sense, and less indoctrinated in the revolutionary sense. Home schooled children, parochial schooled children and private schooled children are always, always, better educated than public schooled children. That’s just the way it is. Public schools are a waste of taxes collected and spent, and the whole giant bureaucracy is nothing but a huge complex drain of treasure spent on a huge bloat of lazy petty bureaucrats who do nothing useful.

National and International Organized Labor Unions

Now, why would any labor union want or need to have a national or an international scope?

Think about a plumber in America, and a plumber in Nicaragua, and a plumber in China, and a plumber in Bangladesh, who all belonged to the same international plumber’s union. Those are all wildly different economies, with wildly different currencies and standards of living, and wildly different living requirements. Should all plumbers from all nations make exactly the same wage and get exactly the same benefit package, using the US dollar as the measuring standard? If not, should they call an international, global strike in order to achieve such equality?

Of course, such a thing is preposterous on its face. It is also a rather imperialistic attitude, in that people in some nation intend to force another nation to change it’s whole economy, currency and standard of living, to suit the desires of someone who doesn’t even live there. Yet, I’ll bet you cannot think of a union in America that is not in some way part of or linked with some national or international labor organization. Why would a union need to be able to call for a labor strike across a whole nation, or across international borders? Where did such an idea originate? Do the words:

The workers have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to gain. WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE! –Communist Manifesto.

strike a familiar note?

Modern organized labor unions were born with Marx’s Communist Manifesto in 1848. Labor is the first and strongest output of Marxist community organizing, which is to say, “Educating” and agitating for class warfare. Labor Unions are always the first ones into the streets any time revolution is called for. They are the best organized; even when the rank and file don’t know what’s going on, they will still respond to the call to strike, or often even to attack non-union “scabs” and damage or occupy company property, or, in many nations, to bring a government to its knees.

You can see the details of unions in America in the Argument Against Unions page and the Anti-Union Sentiment page. In those links you will see how unions operate at cross-purposes with the businesses that employ their members, at the very least. Unions are also at cross-purposes with the free market, and directly and purposely interfere with the natural law of supply and demand as it relates to labor, with a corresponding negative impact on the competitive price of goods and services. Unions attack the free market itself, and therefore, liberty. Capitalism and liberty are inseparable things.

Racial/Ethnic Civil Rights Groups

That the legitimate civil rights movement has been heavily infiltrated and perverted for the purposes of agitating class warfare and civil strife is fairly certain. All the leading Democrats who are clearly oriented toward Marxism feed racial animosity in America at every opportunity. So-called black leadership in this area has become a lucrative career opportunity. When I get time, I will do another page similar to the other ones I’ve done on similar movements, and name it the Racial Nazi page. The whole objective of the movement is to keep America’s black citizens at odds with and refusing to assimilate into the larger American culture.

At the same time, it alienates many whites who would not otherwise be anything other than friendly or indifferent toward blacks, by twisting “equality” laws, regulations and rules, by government, private business and schools, into racist agendas. Examples abound, under the popular titles of Equal Opportunity programs, and Affirmative Action programs. These programs aim at giving preferential treatment to minority members to alleviate or ameliorate past wrongs based on race, and/or to correct current statistical differences between advancement and opportunity of minorities as opposed to whites.

There are two problems with the whole approach. First, a statistical difference proves nothing regarding whether favoritism or discrimination had anything to do with the differences. Second, it is quite impossible to give preferential treatment to someone based solely on race and not simultaneously, by that action, give detrimental treatment to someone else based solely on race. Detrimental treatment of someone based solely on race is almost definitively racism; merely calling it Equal Opportunity or Affirmative Action dose not change the racist nature of it. It remains detrimental treatment of someone based solely upon their race.

These programs are established, as I said, by law, by government regulation, and by rules in private enterprises. They affect everything from hiring, promotions, GPA scores, test scores, graduation requirements, advancement and promotion requirements, protection against demotion or unemployment, and on, and on.

Marxism loves this kind of situation. It is just so exploitable, from both ends. It is perfect for agitating class warfare, from both racial sides. It makes everyone unhappy, one way or another, and unhappiness is always good for the cause of Marxism. An unhappy person will do something.

The important thing to note here is this: Today’s Marxism-driven Democrat Party was the Party of Douglas, opposing Lincoln and the Republican party. It was the Party of Slavery. After Lincoln was shot, it was the Party that took over Reconstruction, and perverted it. It was the Party of the Klan. It was the Party of Jim Crow. It was the Party that re-segregated the military and the government, under Wilson. It was the Party of Segregation Forever that stood against Republican Eisenhower’s national Desegregation program. It was the Party that opposed the equal rights movement of the 60s, at all levels of government. It was the Party of the police dogs and the fire hoses and the murders.

And now, it pretends to be the Party of the blacks and minorities. Winston Churchill warned about the smile of Marxist being equated to the smile of the crocodile, because when it smiled, you couldn’t tell if it was being friendly, or getting ready to eat you. Black America is being played, like a fiddle, and they don’t even know it.

Feminine Civil Rights Groups

Women’s Rights is another area hacked into and exploited by Marxists like Hillary. We talked about it in the Femi-Nazi Front page; you can see the details there.

Homosexual Civil Rights Groups

This is where homosexuals pretend that they are a “disenfranchised” group exactly like a racial minority. Right. Yet another group to be exploited in the Marxist quest for class warfare; indoctrinate, convert and recruit enough little groups, and together there might be enough to outnumber the majority of American voters, especially if you cheat a little. We talked about this nonsense in the Homo-Nazi Front page; you can see the details there.

Environmental Action Groups

This one takes the cake. There are more nauseating scams aimed at frightening children and angering adults here than anywhere else. Fraud after fraud after fraud is invented, legislated and regulated about, and hammered in the media as potential catastrophes, and costing untold billions if not trillions in treasure, for nothing. What positive environmental changes have been brought about by, say, cutting “acid rain” emissions from smoke stacks: None. Cutting ozone-depleting Freon and Styrofoam? None. Recycling? None. Cutting Greenhouse gasses? None. Cutting fossil fuel usage? None. There is not one environmental law or activity that you can site that has produced any change at all, let alone positive change, in the environment. We talked about this nonsense in the Eco-Nazi Front page; you can see the details there.

American Political Contest Strategy

This treatment assumes that we are somehow able to get through a normal election cycle without a Democrat-caused game-changing interrupting disaster of the sort discussed in the America as The World’s Policeman section above.

In the current ongoing contest, there is one and only one Republican candidate who stands a very good chance of losing the general election, and he is the one most popularly touted to be the only one who can win against Comrade Obama, peace be upon him: Mit Romney. Romney is the only one among all Republican candidates who has already declared that he will follow the McCain strategy of not going negative in the final political contest. He will not call his opponent an anti-American, although that is what he is. He will not call his opponent a Marxist, although that is what he is. He will not call his opponent a liar, although that is what he is. He will not even identify, let alone attack, the ideology of his opponent; he says he will keep the discussion on policy, and he will keep it clean. Just as McCain did.

Romney has announced, multiple times, just as McCain did, that he is the only Republican candidate who has proved that he can, and promised that he will, cooperate with the Democrats, reach across the aisle, compromise and get things done – in the interest of Progress. He says that he is the only one who has and can keep a good working relationship with the Marxocrats.

This is tantamount to Romney saying that he will cooperate in the systematic destruction of America. There is no possible reconciliation between Marxism and Capitalism. There is no possible point of negotiated settlement between those two ideologies at which America will not suffer decline. This is building up to be a carbon-copy of McCain’s 2008 strategy, which I predicted would lose, as you can see in the 2008 Election Forecast page. We all know how well the McCain strategy turned out to be in that particular contest.

The Democrat Party quite obviously wants Romney to get the nomination. The SLIMC quite obviously wants Romney to get the nomination. The Establishment Republican Party quite obviously wants Romney to get the nomination. Just like the last time. The media propaganda drum beat insists that Romney is the only one, among all the other candidates, who can win against Comrade Obama, peace be upon him. Even many conservatives have bought into that flagrant Marxist lie. Ann Coulter, for one.

Even Sean Hannity is reduced to advising, (paraphrasing here,) “Vote for the most conservative candidate who you think can win” in your state primary. I strongly advise you to drop the last clause in that sentence; forget about who you think can win. Your state primary is your only chance to vote for a candidate without holding your nose. Vote for the conservative man of principle who is of strong moral conviction, whether anyone says he can win against the other candidates or not. If nobody votes for the most principled candidate, the most principled candidate won’t win. Then, in the later general election, you will be holding your nose when you vote against the incumbent.

Ignore what the polls say; ignore what the SLIMC says; ignore what the Establishment Republican Party says; they are lying to you, and they are trying to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. They do not know who can win any more than you do. Saying someone cannot win in a primary race is a so what scenario; we all agree that Obama has to go. This is your only chance to vote for the candidate of your choice. Do not hold your nose when voting in your state primary. Go for the strongest conservative man of principle with the highest moral standards, and everything else will take care of itself.

From the very beginning, the strongest Republican conservative men of principle and high moral standard who were in the running were women. Every other Republican in the race lacks their guts and conviction. But all of the leading runners are, where they are not outright Progressives, professional politicians, which is to say, their “conservatism” depends on the direction and strength of the political wind of the moment. No one who historically and repeatedly flip-flops multiple times on multiple important issues is a man of high principle or strong moral conviction. Such a man is certainly no ideologue.

The fact is, anyone who can strongly articulate American Constitutional conservatism will win any debate against the incumbent. The differences have never been more stark and clear. Rush Limbaugh said, quite correctly, that cartoon characters such as Elmer Fudd or Mr. McGoo could beat Obama, if they could simply stand up and articulate conservative principles against a Marxist.

The Marxist lie, believed almost universally, is that Obama is a great debater. But, you see, he never debated any conservative worthy of the name. Debating McCain was like debating himself. Obama may be a brilliant Marxist revolutionary. But when it comes to America, the idea, Obama is just an absolute stupid ass. He doesn’t even know how many states we have, for crying out loud. He can’t even go into an elementary school to talk to little children without first having his teleprompter set up for him. He is incapable of talking off the cuff, and would be crushed in any open dialogue with any good conservative.

Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, has been brewed, steeped and stewed in Marxism all the days of his life. To a lesser degree, the same thing can be said about his relationship with Islam. Whatever else may be said about him, he is most definitely an ideologue and a man of strong personal conviction, unlike the leading Republican candidates of the moment. Obama, by his own recorded, written words, is very well versed in Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, Malcolm X and so forth. But he has never really gotten into Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Washington, or anyone in American history other than Progressives. He doesn’t even know what America is about. He hates an America that he doesn’t even know, just as he hates white people he doesn’t even know. He is out to destroy us, and he isn’t smart enough to stand up on a stage against any real conservative American and win. In a debate, Sarah Palin would have bounced him around like a basketball and kicked his ass off the stage, rhetorically speaking. And so would Michelle Bachman. And so would Rick Santorum.

But here’s the important thing: American Principles. It should not matter how well anyone debates; it should not matter how anyone looks; it should not matter how anyone sounds; it should not matter how tall, how short, or even how well spoken someone is. Principle is everything. A man of principle, strong conviction and impeccable moral character is what we need.

The best things I can say about Romney, my last choice (except for Ron Paul) is that he looks the part. Like a Sears Mannequin. Perfect hair, perfect teeth, winning smile, nice suits, looks very Presidential, talks nice, very calm. But he is not a man of principle. The fact that he has to be pushed to the right says it all. He will not be able to articulate American conservatism as well as the others, because he does not have it in his gut and believe it in his heart. He is the consummate, polished, professional politician, but he is no conservative. He is another McCain. He is a loser, by his own choice of political contest strategy. Gingrich would win, because he would take it to Obama; but Gingrich is a self-professed Progressive.

“Better than Obama” isn’t good enough. In the General election, maybe, but not in the Primary races The “Establishment” intends to back the good “Establishment” candidate; what they are most interested in – what they view as Job One – is to simply win the election. That’s it. That’s their job, as they see it. How the candidate will govern after that is secondary to them. They lack principle. They think they can “push” their victorious candidate somewhat to the Right, and maybe some of them hope he might be wise enough to go somewhat more to the Right, but – what can I say – the “Establishment” is no more conservative than their chosen candidate. They are political, not conservative. For them, the political contest itself is everything. America is secondary, or tertiary, to the contest. The leaders of the Republican Party are professional fund raisers, promoters and contest winners. They are not men of principle. They are just as flip-floppy and squishy as their chosen candidate, but they are very good at politics, and at running the political game.

Forget them. The Tea Party needs to take over the Republican Party. We need a candidate who loves America, and we need a Party that loves America, and loves the very idea of America. America needs a rebirth into the strong ideology of our Founders and Framers. Don’t let the elitists pick your candidate for you again. You pick your candidate. It’s time to get rid of the elitists.

These issues have been hit on all over this site, in many, many pages. The question is, what kind of a people are we, and what kind of a nation is this? The best place to see the most links is probably at the Refuting Free Love page, and whatever pages are linked to above in the discussion on Libertarianism.

Do we want open prostitution on the streets, and in store windows all round town? Do we want doped no-hopers sleeping it off in the middle of the street? Do we want cross-dressing Scoutmasters leading children on camping trips? Do we want to see grown men holding hands or making out in places like Disneyland? Do we want opium readily available to our children? Do we want Marines in full dress uniform wearing lipstick and rouge? Do we want to share the highways with some trucker who just dropped acid? Do we want unlimited random copulation and equally unlimited abortion as the ultra contraception method?

It’s pretty hard sometimes to determine which hoax of the many is the worst or the biggest or the most harmful. This one has got to be right up there. It was invented by the government, and Lord knows how much American treasure has been wasted on it, and how much citizen charity has been wasted on it, and how many people have been killed by being treated for something they shouldn’t have been treated for. The details are in the HIV=AIDS=DEATH page. If this is new to you – what can I say? You ain’t gonna believe this. What I can’t believe is that it’s still going on after all these years.

Imagine every tax payer in America suddenly getting a paycheck in which the net equals the gross. No taxes withheld. Imagine every head of household in America getting a monthly check in the mail from the government, instead of paying taxes. Imagine never filing your income taxes ever again. Imagine companies like H&R Block going out of business, and TurboTax shutting down for lack of business. Imagine companies all over America firing tax attorneys and tax accountants, and imagine payroll suddenly becoming exceedingly simple. Imagine no more IRS. Imagine how much money the government would save by firing all those thousands and thousands of tax bureaucrats. Imagine all those corrupt politicians screaming because their main source of hidden corrupt skimming has been suddenly cut off. Imagine the annual revenues of the government being entirely sufficient to cover all current spending. Imagine all the expatriate-American companies, foreign companies and multi-nationals competing with each other to quickly move into America to do business, because they could operate here and they would pay no taxes here. Imagine what happens to all businesses already here when quite suddenly they have no more tax burden.

Can you say Boom?

You can see the details in the Fair Tax page. There is a way to get it up and running quickly, without waiting for the necessary Constitutional Amendment process to repeal the 16th Amendment, at the Fast-Track the FairTax page.

Quite frankly, I cannot understand why no Republican candidate has picked up this banner. The whole Tea Party would climb on their wagon the minute they did. It’s just so simple.